HDDS-8502. Recon - getContainers API is not giving expected response with prevKey.

[ArafatKhan2198]

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

The getContainers() method in the container Endpoint has been modified to exclude the container specified by the prevKey parameter from the list of containers in the ContainerResponse.

The getContainers() method changes ensure that:

1. Skipping the container with the same ID as prevKey: The container stream is filtered to exclude the container matching prevKey, ensuring it is not included in the results.

2. To increase the prevKey by 1: We simply add 1 to the current value of prevKey. This is because the container IDs are arranged in ascending order. By doing this, we remove the first container from the list, which corresponds to the container with a Container ID equal to prevKey. As a result, this prevents that particular container from appearing in the API response.

3. Providing the last container ID in container API Response: The last container ID is determined based on the fetched container metadata. If no containers were fetched, last container ID is set to prevKey. Otherwise, it is obtained from the ID of the last container in the list. This information enables pagination and using the last container ID as the new prevKey value for subsequent requests.

What is the link to the Apache JIRA

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDDS-8502

How was this patch tested?

• Modified the Existing Unit Tests to test out the imrpovements
• Manual Testing :-

// JSON response with prevKey=2 

{
  "data": {
    "totalCount": 4,
    "prevKey": 6,
    "containers": [
      {
        "ContainerID": 3,
        "NumberOfKeys": 27,
        "pipelines": null
      },
      {
        "ContainerID": 4,
        "NumberOfKeys": 29,
        "pipelines": null
      },
      {
        "ContainerID": 5,
        "NumberOfKeys": 26,
        "pipelines": null
      },
      {
        "ContainerID": 6,
        "NumberOfKeys": 28,
        "pipelines": null
      },
    ]
  }
}

[ArafatKhan2198]

@devmadhuu @dombizita @krishnaasawa1 Can you please take a look.

[devmadhuu]

@ArafatKhan2198 thanks for working on this patch, can you also pls add a test case with adding non-sequential container Ids and do all assertions ?

[ashishkumar50]

Hi @ArafatKhan2198, Thanks for working on this. Please find few comments.

[ashishkumar50]

Thanks for updating the patch, LGTM.

[devmadhuu]

Thanks for updating the patch @ArafatKhan2198 . LGTM +1

[dombizita]

thanks for the patch @ArafatKhan2198! thanks for the review @ashishkumar50 @devmadhuu!